EUPillar Fortis Luxembourg Vie SA and Fortis Banque SA v Guy Rousseau

Summary

After the death of his mother on 2 April 2002, Mr. Guy Rousseau learned that his mother had a life insurance policy with the SA Fortis Luxembourg Vie (with Fortis Banque SA acting as intermediary). As heir to his mother, Mr. Rousseau asked for more information about the policy. His request of information was rejected by the Luxembourg bank because this would violate the rules of professional secrecy. Even as heir, Mr. Rousseau himself is not party to the contract under the Luxembourg rules. On 1 April 2005, Mr. Rousseau sued Fortis Luxembourg Vie and Fortis Banque in production of the documents before the Commercial Court of Brussels. The first judge upheld Mr. Rousseau’s claim on the basis of Art. 9 in conjunction with Art. 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. On appeal, the appellants contest the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts and argue that only the courts of Luxembourg are competent. The Court of Appeal decides, first of all, that in this case the request for production of contractual documents is a matter relating to insurance governed by the specific provisions of the Brussels I Regulation (Arts. 8 et seq.). The appellants argue that, with regard to the application of Art. 9, Mr. Rousseau is still a third party to the insurance contract and therefore neither policyholder, nor insured, nor beneficiary. However, Mr. Rousseau and his brother are the sole heirs to their mother’s estate, which was fully transferred to them at the moment of her death (cf. Art. 1122 Belgian Civil Code). The dependants of a deceased person have the same rights as the deceased, be it as policyholder or as insured, unless the policy is opposed to such a transmission of rights. The dependents have the right to request all legal documents related to the policy. The rule of Art. 9(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation applies as if they were policyholder.